Share :
Introduction
In a landmark decision for consumer rights, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Haryana) has held Amazon liable for failing to refund a customer for a damaged product. The case involved Ms. Mamta Rani, who ordered a foot massager from Amazon that arrived severely damaged due to torn packaging. Despite attempts to receive a replacement or refund, Amazon ultimately failed to resolve the issue, prompting Ms. Rani to file a consumer complaint.
THE CASE
Ms. Mamta Rani purchased two items through Amazon, including an OSIM Ustiletto Electric Foot Massager for Rs. 39,000. Upon receiving the package, she discovered the foot massager was severely damaged due to torn packaging. Despite contacting Amazon and requesting a replacement or refund, Ms. Rani received no response. While an initial email from Amazon mentioned a refund being processed, the amount was not received. Unresolved, Ms. Rani filed a consumer complaint against Amazon with the District Commission.
AMAZON’S DEFENCE
Amazon defended its actions by claiming it acted solely as an intermediary between Ms. Rani and the third-party seller, Primarc Pecan Retail Private Limited. They cited Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which exempts intermediaries from liability for content hosted on their platforms. Additionally, Amazon argued that they communicated Ms. Rani’s grievance to the seller, who denied the refund claim. Furthermore, they labelled Ms. Rani an “abusive user” for allegedly requesting concessions from other sellers on their platform.
THE COMMISSION’S OBSERVATIONS
The District Commission dismissed Amazon’s arguments, stating that their role in the transaction went beyond mere facilitation. The commission highlighted the following key points:
- Direct Interaction: Rani placed the order and filed the return request directly with Amazon, negating their claim of being solely an intermediary.
- Shifting Stance:Initially, Amazon acknowledged the return request but later denied it without providing any concrete evidence to support their claim of the product being delivered intact.
- Lack of Evidence:Amazon failed to furnish any substantial evidence to refute Ms. Rani’s claims regarding the damaged product.
THE VERDICT
Based on these observations, the commission held Amazon liable for deficiency in service. Consequently, they directed Amazon to:
- Refund the full cost and repay Ms. Rani the sum of Rs. 39,000/- for the damaged foot massager.
- Pay an additional interest of 9% per annum on the refund amount from the date of filing the complaint until the realization of the payment.
- Pay Ms. Rani Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, along with Rs. 7,500/- to cover litigation expenses.
Conclusion
This case sets a precedent for holding online platforms accountable for the products they sell, even if they function through third-party sellers. It emphasizes the importance of robust consumer protection mechanisms and serves as a reminder for online retailers to uphold their responsibilities towards providing satisfactory customer service.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
